Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Birchfield v. North Dakota. The case is about laws in 13 states that make it a crime for drivers to refuse breath or blood tests without a warrant when ordered to undergo such tests by a police officer. The cases the Supreme Court are reviewing were filed by drivers who were charged with a crime after they refused to take breath tests after being stopped for suspicion of driving drunk.

The law in general states that the police cannot search a driver or car after an arrest without getting a warrant. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the police cannot obtain a person’s blood who is suspected of DUI in order to perform a blood test without getting a warrant first.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on this important issue in June. If the Court finds the law constitutional, you can expect the Nevada Legislature to pass a similar law in Nevada.

At Nobles & Yanez, we defend DUI cases aggressively with an eye towards challenging every possible violation of the law by the police, from the point the police first stop a person until and through the person’s arrest.

Read more here: http://www.wsj.com/article_email/supreme-court-questions-punishments-for-refusing-drunken-driving-tests-1461178063-lMyQjAxMTA2MzI4MDcyMTA3Wj

Read a transcript of the oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-1468_b97d.pdf